Talk:Lord Howe Island/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial review
I'm sorry for the slow initial progress on the review; unfortunately I was not been able to do any work on wikipedia over the weekend.

This appears to be a competent article, which stands a reasonable chance of making it through to GA-status. I think I needs a bit more work in several places; and I'll list these points tomorrow.Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The article appears to be well-written and generally well-referenced. However there are a number of unreferenced statements, so I'm just going to concentrate on them for the moment.


 * Geology -
 * Statements about the Lord Howe seamount chain are unreferenced.
 * ✅ seamount chain, but didn't find a ref for 60-80 million. --99of9 (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The coral reef and lagoon are unreferenced.


 * Flora -
 * First paragraph: Apart from the first sentence, this is completely unreferenced.


 * Other animals -
 * First, second, fourth and last paragraphs are unreferenced.


 * This is quite a "bitty" section consisting of mostly two-sentence and one-sentence paragraphs. The second paragraph is the best of these. I would suggest that some of these paragraphs be combined to provide a better reading experience.


 * Threats and conservation -
 * First paragraph: Apart from the last sentence, this is completely unreferenced.
 * The second paragraph is well referenced in the first half; but the second half is unreferenced.


 * Other comments -
 * Apart from the lack of in-line citations mentioned above, the article is generally of GA-standard.


 * Having gone through the article is some detail, I think there are a few missing points:


 * Settlement is barely mentioned. History mentions the Old Settlement and an establishment date of 1834; the infobox gives the largest city as: "Lord Howe Island (347)"; and tourism is mentioned as one of only two sources of external income. However, that is all. I would expect the article to provide more information about settlement, the Old Settlement and the infrastructure to support tourism.


 * Transportation is barely mentioned, apart from: "Until the construction of Lord Howe Island Airport in 1974, the only way to reach the island by air was by sea or by flying boat from Rose Bay in Sydney, landing on the lagoon surrounded by the coral reef". The facilities for boats are not mentioned. There is nothing about the airport, apart from a link; and flying boats are mentioned in passing, but presumably (and this in not mentioned in the article) this covered the period from about 1920s, or possibly post-WW II, to 1974?


 * The WP:lead is a bit short. This is intended to do two things: provide an introduction to the article, which is does reasonably well; and to summarise the main points of the article. I would suggest that the lead needs to be expanded to about twice its present size - perhaps by adding a third paragraph which includes a bit more summarised information on Lord Howe Island.

I'm putting the article On Hold for these points to be addressed. If you have any questions about this assessment, add them to this page and I will answer them on this page.Pyrotec (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Pyrotec (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)